A face for radio on the radio!

My old friend Izzy Lyman is a regular guest host for Trucker Randy on his Patriot Voice Radio Network show from beautiful N.W. Michigan. Izzy wanted to know about the current situation in Georgia. So I told her.

Listen here.

yourdefendingfathers.com

 

The below is taken from an online Zoom ‘conference’ conducted by GLAHR attorney Van Huynh with attendees W. Mondale Robertson (Black Male Voter Project), Amanda “Chavez” Barnes who uses the group “Mijente” in the meeting credits, and Alisha Yaqoob Mamood (Asian Americans Advancing Justice). My educated guess is that the meeting was conducted sometime during the early voting period in 2020.

“Zoom conference – “The role of Sheriffs in Abolishing ICE and Defunding Police.”

GLAHR moderator

A Few starting quotes:

* “Imagine a world without policing…”

* “Put in place a sheriff with a pro-immigration agenda…”

• Bonus education: Watch the nice GLAHR folks scream at passing traffics in Gwinnett County, GA.

 

Transcript by Rev.com. My cost $138.00 and more than three hours of my time.

Original Zoom video here.

 

Begin: Van Huynh Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights (GLAHR)
Yeah, looks like we’re live. Good to go, Mondale? Or Amanda?

W. Mondale Robertson:
Good to go.

Van Huynh:
Thank you. Hi, welcome everyone. Uh, my name is Van, I’m with the GLAHR Action, uh, Network and I’ll be sort of hosting for tonight. Uh, thank you for joining us for this conversation that we’re calling Georgia Sheriffs: Stop Deportation, Defund Policing, and End Deaths in Jail. Uh, you are here today with the GLAHR Action Network, the Black Male Voters Project, Asian American Advocacy Fund, and also Mijente.
We’re excited that you could join us for this event. Um, as you may be aware, sh- several sheriffs are up for reelection this year throughout Georgia, so this is a monumental opportunity for communities to make it known what is the role of a sheriff in this political moment. Um, I think this conversation is important not only because it’s an election year, but particularly, uh, this political moment is asking us to imagine a world without policing.
Uh, but before I get into this lively discussion, I’d like to go over some l- logistics. Uh, this program today will be conducted in English. There is interpretation available in Spanish. Uh, if you are interested in listening in in Spanish, please go to the GLAHR Action Network Facebook page, uh, which will be linked on the comment, um, on this video. And I’m gonna invite the Spanish interpreters to also provide this information in Spanish.

Spanish Interpreter:
[Spanish 00:02:01]

Van Huynh:
Thank you. Um, so I’d like to introduce our speakers and educators for tonight. Uh, we have W. Mondale Robertson, who is the Principal and Founder of the Black Male Voters Project, which is building a movement that encourages Black men to regularly and actively engage in the voting and electoral process. Um, this is done through longterm relationship building to address the b- barriers to voting.
Uh, we also have Aisha Yaqoob, who is Director of the Asian American Advocacy Fund. Uh, it is a grassroots 501(c)4 social welfare organization dedicated to building a politically conscious, engaged, and progressive Asian American base in Georgia, um, specifically with a vision where Asian Americans’, Pacific Islanders’, and Native Hawaiians’ voices are represented in elected leadership, uh, and with progressive policies, and in progressive policies across Georgia.
Uh, we also have Amanda Chavez Barnes, who is the Digital and Data Director at Mijente, uh, which is an organizing hub for Latinx and Chicanx- Chicanx, uh, movement building, and is organizing for a historic mob- mobilization of voters, uh, this November. Uh, Mijente is pro-Black, pro-Indigenous, pro-worker, pro-mujer, pro-LGBTQ, and pro-migrant. I also wanna give a big thanks to Mijente, uh, who’s working the back end of this to keep this program running, so thank you.
Um, so I wanna start by just laying some of the framing for today’s discussion. Uh, we know that in Georgia, sheriffs play a huge role. Uh, sh- sheriffs will tell you that what they do is they just run the jail, they carry out court orders, but we do, we know that they do so much more. Sheriffs not only have discretion as to whether they will release people from jail, uh, but how they carry out certain orders, uh, such as eviction notices, um, and they also have po- huge political influences in current policy c- considerations.
Um, so for this event, I want us to think through sort of in this current moment, what is the role of the sheriff when we talk about abolishing ICE, when we talk about closing jails and defunding the police? Um, I wanna sort of just quote, uh, sort of a statement from Adelina Nicholls, who is also the Director of the GLAHR Action Network, uh, where she says that, “This November, in addition to fighting to get the best person for our communities into federal office, people around the country are tasked with the power to vote for local government and law enforcement officials who will work to improve communities rather than criminalize us. If we are able to put in place a- a sheriff with a pro-immigrant agenda, it will be a sign that there is a chance for progressive wins regardless of what happens at the federal level, um, even those wins in the South.” So, thank you.
Um, for this event, I’m gonna ask the panelists a few questions, and I invite y’all to sort of build off each other’s comments and just engage with one another. Um, and I wanna start off the event by getting us rooted in some knowledge, um, so Mondale, I’m gonna cue it up to you and ask could you just give us, like, a brief overview of what is the history of policing and the sheriffs’ role in the South?

W. Mondale Robertson:
Uh, so thank you so much, Van, and, uh, everyone who put this together, and also those that are working and not seen. Um, we appreciate that. Uh, we are, I am Mondale Robertson of the Black Male Voters Project, and it is a wonderful, wonderful day to be here with my brothers and, uh, sisters (laughing), sisters. Um, so I- I- I thought about, um, how I was gonna talk about the history of- of the, uh, the office of sheriff and, you know, so often we go back, um, and I think we lose some people when we go back to talking about what happened in the 1600s or the 1800s. So rather than talk about it that way, I think I’ll start by saying, uh, regardless of what you hear and/or told, there are but two types of sheriffs in this country, and the differences exist in the minds of those who fall on opposite sides of the racial line.
If you are a member of the majority race, sheriffs may evoke thoughts of Wyatt Earp or John Wayne and that archetype. They may seem to be the epitome of law-abiding citizens that are elected to protect the good folk. However, to those of us whom are of the darker hue and who live on the margins with our backs against the wall, the other sheriff, the real sheriff, is nothing short of a real-life boogie monster, steeped in white supremacy traditions and tendencies, a politicians with the power to hold us in a cell with access to medicine should we need it, a politician with the power to violate our constitutional rights, a politician with the power to shackle our pregnant loved ones, a politician with the power to lock humans in dark and dingy holes for days and even months. And because we have allowed this false narrative to exist about who and what sheriffs are, their power is usually unchecked.
The histories of sheriffs in this country, in the South, in Georgia, and in Gwinnett and Cobb County to be more specific, cannot be separated from the fact that the history of American sheriffs is replete with horrifying violence, racism, and abuses of power. And to think, and… I’m sorry, and thanks to the near-infinite divis- diversity of local laws that are tangled across this country, sheriffs can now find themselves as defacto all-purpose lawmen, wielding any number of powers over their jurisdiction. Some of those powers are absolute. They can enforce court orders, conduct autopsies, manage jails, provide security details, contract out police services to neighboring areas, and even dispatch ambulances in some cases. Certain states, like our very own Georgia, still allow sheriffs to literally round up a posse to execute warrants.
So rather than dance to a long time ago like the 16 and 1700s, I can give you examples of sheriffs and what they can be, and how we need to look at and examine our sheriffs, the- the role of sheriffs in current politics. Uh, some of those examples are J- J- Joe Arpaio, David Clarke, and Robert Gualtieri. Each of these men represent what is wrong with the unchecked power of the office of sheriff in this country.
David Clarke, for example, allowed a, allowed the death of a mentally ill man in his jail when his deputies refused water or anything to drink to this man so long that he died of dehydration. Consider that, a human who should have been under professional medical care, not in a county jail, died from dehydration because of an uncaring sheriff.
Joe Arpaio is s- responsible for so many human rights violations that the list is too long to name, but consider the fact that as sheriff, he set up the notorious tent cities that saw more than 150 people lose their lives. One hundred and fifty people died under h- in custody while he was an administrator. Uh, he’s also a sheriff who had his own SWAT team. So often, he used those SWAT teams to illegally profile our Brown brothers and sisters that the federal court system stepped in and held him in contempt.
Robert Gualtieri is a sheriff in Pinellas County, Florida, the current sheriff, who had deputies chase four or five Black women in a car. The women eventually crashed in a body of water, and all of them drowned to death. Instead of getting out of their cars to help the women, the deputies sat in their squad cars and made jokes. When asked about it, the Sheriff Roberts said, “If you don’t run from the police, then you won’t die.” It’s also worth noting that under his administration, more than five people have been killed by tasers.
So, we don’t need to go to the point where we pretend that you need a vivid imagination to see what’s wrong with the unchecked powers of sheriffs. So rather than considering what folks say, is written on a job description on paper, about what a sheriff is and isn’t, uh, we just need to con- we need to consider these unchecked, real-life sheriffs and how much violence their collective administrations are responsible for, and for these reasons, we ask, uh, that you pl- please consider how you think about the importance of the office of sheriff and the role they play in current politics, not just in Georgia but in this country, uh, altogether. Thank you, Van.

Van Huynh:
Yeah. Thank you for that, Mondale. Um, I- I really appreciate you sort of giving clear examples of just how, um, yeah, like, what are the actions of sheriffs, um, not only historically but in- in recent years too, right? I think sometimes when we think about sheriffs, um, with, you know, roots as state patrols and, um, and reinforcing, uh, segregation, that that seems so long ago, but yet we know that, like, those roots of it grows until today. Um, and all of that is still very present.
Um, but I think it’s- it’s, yeah, it’s- it’s good to understand sort of, like, how sheriffs act nowadays, and, uh, what I want us to do is, um, if y’all will engage with me, um, to do a little bit of an imagination game. I think one of the questions that a lot of community groups, um, and spaces are asking themselves is what does public safety look like, right? Because we look to law enforcement and the sheriffs, um, as a form of safety even though w- we know that there is this disconnect where they don’t really protect us and they don’t keep us safe.
Um, so to that, I wanna create, um, I wanna present to y’all just sort of scenarios, um, and I’d love to know, uh, in your minds, in this new world that we’re building, just what is the role of the sheriff then? Um, and then one of the scenarios I have is, uh, and this is, I think, what we’re hearing a lot about also is due to COVID-19, families are struggling to make payments on time, um, mortgage payments, rental payments. Uh, if there is a hostile property management- management company that is seeking to evict families at- at the moment, and, um, and the local sheriff’s department is receiving a court order in which the eviction must happen, uh, you know, usually in a period of 24 to 48 hours, what is it that the sheriff should do then?
Um, if it’s okay, I’d like to, like, uh, shoot this over to Aisha, um, and just hear your thoughts about, like, this new elected sheriff that we have, uh, if he’s asked to carry out eviction notices, what should he do instead?

Aisha Yaqoob:
Yeah, thank you for that question, Van, and thank you, Mondale, for that explanation, um, that you gave about really rethinking the role of sheriffs in our communities. Um, I- I think for me, one of the things that I will push back on, um, in terms of the role of the sheriff here with evictions is, um, making sure that the sheriff understands that they as an elected official have the opportunity to also speak out in really difficult political situations. Um, we saw sheriffs around the country, um, being asked to speak out and talk about conditions in the jail not being safe for inmates because of COVID, and also before COVID, we knew that jail conditions weren’t safe.
And so, um, what we need right now is sheriffs who are willing to step up to the plate and speak out against the systems that are actively disenfranchising our communities and pushing out, push- pushing out people from their homes. Now, nobody should be evicted from their home, much less during the time of the pandemic, and, um, my recommendation and what I’d love to see in a sheriff is someone who’s willing to speak out and say, “No evictions, not now, uh, not until families can get back on their feet,” um, and really use that authority that they have to not just make it clear to, um, the judicial arm of the, of- of the locality, but to use that- that platform that they have to encourage action, um, that- that is not related to evictions.
Um, I also, you know, wanna make sure that- that sheriffs are bringing, um, attention to other issues that are related to what goes on beyond just, uh, you know, forcing people out of their home. What happens when, uh, their belongings are, um, seized, and what happens when people are- are torn from the very things that can help protect them during a pandemic? So making sure that they use those responsibilities in the wisest way possible.

Van Huynh:
Um, I’d also like to invite Amanda into, uh, to play around with this scenario, just if you have any thoughts about what this new sheriff should do.

Amanda “Chavez” Barnes:
Yeah, definitely. Um, would definitely echo, um, what Aisha had said, you know, in that sheriffs have a large platform to be able to encourage folks to do things differently and to be able to speak out against these abuses, and they also have the discretion to enforce those court orders or not enforce those court orders. Um, and for me, it’s a very personal question in some ways because, um, in my example, in my- in my experience, like, we got evicted all the time when I was a kid, um, my mom was constantly getting evicted, I actually don’t have any baby pictures because of exactly what I was just describing, because of landlords taking all our belongings, throwing them out on the curb, or seizing them, throwing them in a dumpster.
And that’s a reality for many, many families, and even if it’s not during a pandemic, this shouldn’t happen to anyone. Um, I would want to even see sheriffs go a step further and actively encourage, uh, reallocating of funds that are currently going to do these things to cause harm in our communities, and encourage those funds to be diverted away from those sorts of actions into services and into infrastructure that would actually provide housing for people, um, and provide services to people, and advocate to have the laws changed and have broader systemic change so that people aren’t put in that position in the first place where they have insecure housing.

Van Huynh:
Yeah, thank you for that, Amanda, thank you for sharing your story. Um, yeah, I think housing insecurity is one of those issues that, uh, not only has a lot of people on edge in this moment, um, but, yeah, affects people regularly. And so, yeah, anything that the sheriff can do to really protect people and not protect proprieties or protect the interests of businesses I think, um, is a point that we wanna get across to, uh, candidates who are running for office right, and even to the- the current sheriffs.
Um, with that, I wanna jump into a second scenario, um, and this is something that I’ve seen a lot, uh, across, uh, the United States, which is that county commissioners are really hearing from community folks, um, that they must defund the local jail, and we know that if there’s an area where the sheriff has a say in, it’s going to be this. If sheriffs are saying that, “The only thing I do is run the jail,” when conversations that come up about the local jail, um, it’s important to hear what it is that they’re saying.
Uh, so in this scenario, the county chair reaches out to the sheriff to ask for their thoughts on the matter. What is it that the sheriff should do in this new world? Um, I’m gonna pass this to Mondale, uh, if you could share us your thoughts about how should the sheriff respond to something like this if he sees that his role is to maintain the county jail, um, maintain his office, right, keep funding going, and the call that folks are asking for is to defund it completely?

W. Mondale Robertson:
Yeah, I think, um, we are in- we are in a space now where we must- we must demand that our sheriffs be advocating for people, not business and property, as Amanda said. I think, uh, in this new world in this scenario, the coun- when the county reaches out to the sheriff, the sheriff must, uh, with authority, his or her authority, speak, uh, about the importance of not extending or creating more harm to communities, therefore that- that- that- that- that office should be used to divert, uh, funds, um, from the sheriff. I- I need a sheriff that is advoc- that is actively advocating, uh, ending the- the holding of bodies in cells. It is inhumane for people to be in these spaces, uh, health wise, uh, the absence of light, sunshine, the absence of ab- the ability to move around. People know, when- when people are incarcerated, they are subjected to more comorbidities that shorten their lifetime.
So, I- I think if you are a sheriff that are, that is speaking for the people or be- on behalf of the people, then you should be advocating for less funds. Any sheriff that is asking for more funds or trying to maintain the status quo is not doing the bidding of people but- but instead, uh, talking on behalf of businesses, some of those businesses who own these private jails, um, which should never be the case at all, um, in this country, a first-world, so they say, first-world country.

Van Huynh:
Now, I- I’d love to just jump in there, um, and talk specifically about, um, you know, what we’re seeing, right, uh, from county sheriff’s offices themselves. They’re asking for more funds year after year, um, they want more funding for programs like the 287(g) program. Um, they want more funding for- for some things, you know, that- that are, uh, harmless, right? They want money for education, they want money for mental health services, and I don’t think that that’s an issue, but where I find it an issue is that those funds should be allocated outside of the sheriff’s office.
If we want to provide mental health services, if we wanna provide educational opportunities, and other services that could really impact people’s lives while they’re in custody, then let’s make sure that those funds get diverted to other agencies that are within the county or external nonprofit agencies, um, that can help make sure that those inmates have access to the care that they need without necessarily adding to, um, the sheriff’s own budget. We know that sheriffs in Georgia, and in particular Gwinnett County, the sheriff has a history of, um, abuse of funds, you know, uh, spending money on muscle cars and unnecessary equipment, uh, supporting programs like the Rapid Response Team, which, y- you know, we know is actively- actively, um, harming inmates that are, you know, within the jails right now.
So, um, that’s my recommendation is, uh, you know, agree to defunding the jail, and if the argument is about support for inmates, then let’s move those funds towards agencies that actually know how to spend that money and that know how to do those services more effectively.

W. Mondale Robertson:
Th- this is- this is not… May I- may I go on?

Van Huynh:
Yeah, of course. Go ahead.

W. Mondale Robertson:
Yeah, this is- this is not a small, this is not a small topic that Aisha brang up, this is extremely important, the idea that sheriffs should be educators, or the idea that we need more police force, uh, presence in schools sounds to a Black man who cares about Brown bodies as well, Black and Brown bodies, that this is the most fearful thing I can think of, putting more, uh, police officers in any role, in any capacity, around our children. Makes no sense to me, it is dangerous on so many levels. We know that we are over policed, um, in every aspect of life, there’s no need when our children are trying to be educated to be worried about what’s gonna happen to them because of th- the gentleman and/or the woman in a brown uniform that’s looking to lock them up for anything, uh, like a schoolyard fight or a disagreement with the teacher. This is- this is not healthy, uh, behavior for a country that- that claims to care about folk.
Also, I wanna say that, you know, uh, Aisha brought up the- brought up the 287(g). We need sheriffs… Any sheriff looking to support this- this, uh, this type of, uh, law, that I guess they call it law enforcement, but it’s unconstitutional so it can’t be law, it shouldn’t be law, and, uh, if you are a sheriff advocating for this or funds for this program, then you- then you are by default violating that office because that is not upholding the law. You’re violating someone’s constitutional rights.

Aisha Yaqoob:
The other thing I’ll just add, just to, uh, reiterate what, uh, Mondale was saying about, you know, holding these bodies inside of these jails, um, we can slash the funding on these jails super easily by letting people out of these jails. Um, they’re holding people in pretrial detention, we can end cash bail, let people out on reconnaissance, let them show up to their court dates. There’s no reason to have people waiting for months and months over-

Amanda “Chavez” Barnes:
… for a year in some cases just waiting, actually being presumed innocent but being punished before they’ve even b- b- been, uh, sentenced with anything. It makes no sense.

W. Mondale Robertson:
And the, the, you know, the harm that, uh… Amanda, you, that’s a powerful statement because the harm of holding poor people. This is debtors’ prison which this country is supposedly against. The ha- holding poor people before they’ve been tried or convicted of anything. There’s no presumption of innocence if you’re holding me for something I’ve not been convicted for. So the idea that we have pe- so many bodies in jail for so long, um, only holding them sometimes just to get a plea out of them so that we can hold up or DAs can prop up their conviction rate is ridiculous to me and it’s also inhumane.

Van Huynh:
Yeah, thank you, y’all. I, yeah, I think you’re bringing up a lot and I want us to sort of, like, parse through some of these things and just, like, take a step back to explain to folks, um, like, what is the 287(g) program. So I try, like, to sort of give it back to you and just ask you, can you just give us, like, a brief summary of, like, what is the 287(g) program and, like, where does the County Sheriff play, um, in sort of the deportation pipeline, right? As to how people get into immigration proceedings to begin with.

Aisha:
Yeah. Van, um, I’d love to explain, um. So, uh, I think the big thing that I like to mention is that the 287(g) program is not new. This program has been around for years, um, was expanded in the Obama eras and obviously has also been expanded, um, under the recent administration. Now this 287(g) program is completely optional for counties to opt into and to allow cooperation with Immigrations and Customs Enfor- Enforcement and allow individuals to be transferred out of their jails and into the custody of ICE which we know has a track record of, um, uh, of poor conditions in the detention centers and a track record of keeping people unnecessarily, um, you know, for various reasons.
Now the 287(g) program itself, um, at the jail level operates through, uh, individuals who are arrested coming through the system and as, as individuals are picked up and processed through the jails, um, they’re fingerprinted and then with, uh, cooperation with ICE it’s made aware that that person might be undocumented or might be in a different immigration status that requires a detainer hold on them. Now, this will allow ICE to offer up a detainer request on that individual and the Sheriff’s Office can from there, uh, decide if they want to honor that detainer request or if they do not want to. And I make that very clear because sheriffs have that discretion to, uh, to actually accept that request to hold an individual beyond the time which they should be held, um, or they can say, “I’m sorry, I’m, I’m not gonna hold anyone, um, just because ICE isn’t, ICE has asked me to hold them.”
Um, so what we’re seeing at the county levels is individuals being arrested for, um, traffic violations, for driving without a license, um, coming in through the jails, uh, thinking that they might just be in there for, you know, an ov- an overnight stint, um, but then coming into contact with ICE because of the cooperation that their county jail has with this 287(g) program.
Now, uh, I’m gonna focus a little bit on Gwinnett and Cobb because those are the two big counties that we work in quite a bit, uh, that have existing 287(g) agreements. You may have heard about these agreements, uh, through the, the great organizing work of, um, partners like Majente and Guar and some of our, uh, partners on the ground in Gwinnett and across the state that have been bringing to light some of these issues. But I think what the real, um, the, the great, uh, part of this campaign that we’ve been able to put together is really bringing to light how this program disenfranchises so many communities regardless of what county they’re in. We know that people that are traveling through Gwinnett county or traveling through Hall County are being picked up daily, um, laborers, people that are trying, just trying to access a job are being, uh, are coming into contact with law enforcement and then coming into contact with immigration officials from there.
Um, I just wanna share some numbers based on, uh, the most recent data that we have from September 2019 because Gwinnett County, Georgia makes up such a large percentage of the detainer, of the ICE detainers that, uh, are part of the 287(g) program. Just based on some rough numbers, Gwinnett County has made up over 21,000 ICE detainers, um, si- in the last few years. Uh, data as recent as September 2019 shows that. Um, Cobb County those numbers are in the, the 10,000 range but we know that the, the Cobb County Sheriff’s Office is just as strict as the Gwinnett County Sheriff’s Office and is wanting to expand this program and do more to detain and, uh, deport immigrants through this program.
Now, I also just wanna, um, clarify and talk about the sheriff’s role in this again. You know, we talk about the authority that they have, um, over evictions and the, um, the say that they have in this process. A lot of sheriffs will say that, you know, they have to honor detainer requests are, are not valid warrants. Um, our, our community has always said that, you know, detainer requests don’t mean that county officials and, uh, jail officials have to coordinate with immigration enforcement. And that’s where we have been pushing back. Um, what we’re seeing now also is the rise of these 287(g) agreements, uh, in Georgia in particular over the last few years we’ve seen a few more counties join this program. Um, but there are also other programs that are being, um, picked up across the, the country because of this new administration that are working towards very similar means of detaining individuals, uh, with the eventual goal of putting them through this deportation pipeline.
And I just wanna close out, um, and, and say that Georgia as a state has already been working towards legislation at the state level to create, uh, a deportation pipeline for the state. They have been, uh, year after year introducing legislation that would mandate this level of immigration enforcement because we have legislators that, you know, want to detain and deport our communities. Um, we have a governor who ran on the platform of rounding, uh, criminals and deporting them. So we live in a place where immigration enforcement and the detention and deportation pipeline is a very really thing. And our county sheriffs play a huge role in making sure that that [inaudible 00:06:46] and that’s not happening where our communities live.

Van Huynh:
Thank you, Aisha. Uh, [inaudible 00:06:55]-

W. Mondale Robertson:
It’s also worth noting, Van, it’s not a small thing that the cost on small communities, on counties that implement 287(g). People believe that because ICE is a federal agency that they cover these costs when in actuality they do not. They cover a partial part of it. And don’t get me mixed up as not caring about the human cost, I’m just talking about for those people who so cynical talk about money, uh, as a reason to continue, uh, jails, ICE is an expensive process and, uh, program for counties. If you consider in Mecklenburg County in North Carolina where Charlotte is, it cost their county 5.4 million to implement 287(g). If you consider, uh, Alamance County which is also in North Carolina, another four million dollars of taxpayer dollars to implement this program. We also saw that in Harris County where in t- in Texas where Houston is, uh, when they, when they ended in 2017, when they ended, uh, 287(g) program there they saved over seven hundred and si- over 760 or so m- um, thousand dollars, $100,000 in one year just by, just by ending 287(g).
And, and think about this, people are being held in these jails, uh, on ICE ap- on ICE papers simply because they’re living in this country without papers which is not a crime, it shouldn’t be a crime, right? Also it’s worth nothing that the trust that is eroded by, uh, immigrant communities when these programs are put in place puts so many people, mainly those living, um, on the margins and the least amongst us, are at so much danger because people are least likely to, to cooperate or report a crime if they’re thinking that their family members or that they themselves may be, uh, deported for this ridiculous 287(g) program. So it’s, it’s so much to think about when we’re talking about 287(g), especially the trust that’s eroded, um, between two communities that are already not communicating, the police departments and, uh, immigrant communities.

Van Huynh:
Yeah. Thank you for that Mondale and Aisha. Um, yeah, I think debunking the myth around how much county, how much money counties make from the 287(g) program is also a big thing. I know sheriffs will go on their sort of county tours and talk about how much money they’re able to bring in through this program and we know that it actually costs millions per years. Um, so yeah, thank you for highlighting that.
Um, I also wanna take this opportunity to invite Amanda, um, to talk about just like what the local experience is. Um, I know you live in Cobb County and so what, what does it mean to live in a county that has a very hostile, anti-immigrant, um, you know, sheriff who, uh, has been in office for more than 20 years. Um, yeah, I think some of the issues that, that Aisha has raised I know, um, yeah, we see it day to day, uh, in, in the community.

Amanda “Chavez” Barnes:
Yeah. Definitely, um, I can say there’s, there’s so much to say, we don’t have that much time. But, um, you know, being born and raised and growing up in Georgia, um, I live in Cobb County now. I graduated from Kennesaw State University over 10 years ago, which is also in Cobb County. So I’ve seen, um, the changes that have happened and, um, you know, just since 2007, uh, thousands and thousands of families have been separated because of the 287(g) program in Cobb County. Um, the economy of Latino folks, um, the economy fueled by Latino folks has been completely devastated by the actions of this sheriff. Um, and there is a constant sense of fear. I know so many people who will not drive through Cobb County, um, because, you know, it’s, it’s, uh, it’s a constant terror, um, that at, at any moment, you know, you could not only be stopped, um, and if you have papers be harassed, be abused by being thrown in the jail, uh, but if you don’t have papers it could end in, you know, dev- the devastation of being separated from your loved ones.
Um, so, yeah. There, there is a, of constant feeling of fear. Um, lots of people who have left Cobb County and those who aren’t able to leave, um, really being treated, um, as second class citizens because the folks who agree with the sheriff and, um, you know, have some of these same opinions that the sheriff holds feel empowered to treat people like garbage, like trash, and know that, you know, they won’t suffer any repercussions because of it. So, um, it’s something that affects the entire culture, um, and the attitudes of people in this county when, um, it’s something that’s being made very clear on a regular basis that there’s certain people who are targets and that the law in the area, um, you know, supports the abuse of certain folks. Um, so it’s a palpable issue.
In, in addition to that, uh, even folks who, who, um, like I said in my paper, who may be in the jail for extended periods of time are suffering extreme abuses. Not only immigrants but, um, you know, trans women. There was recently a trans woman who, uh, lodged many complaints about the abuses that she suffered in Cobb County Jail because of the harassment, um, and being, her gender actually being changed by jail employees. In 2019 alone, nine people died in Cobb County jails because they were completely on lock down, um, in isolated, um, cells, basically not being able to communicate with the outside world.
Um, so of course there is another level, um, that applies to undocumented immigrants but even folks in my family, um, you know, who, who have papers, who don’t have that additional, you know, level of marginalization and precarity that comes with, you know, not having, um, citizenship status or not having, you know, legal permanent residence status, don’t like to come to Cobb County because of the way that, um, you know, the, the sheriff has conducted these things. And, um, yeah. Just the, the, that history and the culture of fear and as people say the, um, like, wild wild west moniker, I actually feel like it’s kind of the opposite in some ways because in the wild wild west there’s not the law and in Cobb County there’s an over o- oppressive, overbearing feeling that, um, the law has so much power and so much ability to ab- abuse and terrorize people with impunity.

Van Huynh:
Yeah, thank you, Amanda. Um, I think just, like, as an immigration attorney that is something that I hear often, um, from clients and folks. Um, es- especially about Gwinnett, um, and Cobb County, just the fear of driving through it. Um, and wh- what it would even mean to get a ticket, right? Like, uh, you know, a ticket for, like, your h- your taillights being out or something. Um, but that’s something that they talk about where, yeah, they don’t wanna drive into that certain area, they don’t wanna drive at a certain hour of night. Where they, people are on a very strict schedule if they’re working. They wanna get from point A to point B very quickly. Um, and to have that sort of influence, um, that the 287(g) program has over people’s lives, um, is just horrendous.
Um, but one thing I wanna sort of shift back to is y’all brought up pretrial detention. Um, uh, this is an issue that I always think, like, we don’t talk enough about that folks are literally getting kidnapped and held in county jail. Um, and oftentimes I just think, you know, if no one points it out people just end up being forgotten in jails for a long period of time. Um, so Mondale, I’d like for you to just tell us, like, what is pretrial detention, um, sort of what’s terrible about it and then what would be the alternative to it?

W. Mondale Robertson:
So, uh, in a nutshell, uh, for the sake of time, pretrial detention is the illegal holding of people before they’ve been convicted of any crime. Um, and that, that is, this country, uh, you know, in the, in the early ’70s, late ’70s, early ’80s we had an all out, uh, campaign against Argentina for, uh, Guerra Sucia, the Dirty War, right? Um, because it, people were disappearing, people that disagreed with the military junta. All we have right now with the pretrial agreement is a, it is a dirty war. It is a disappearing of people. We have so many bodies being held that have not been convicted of anything. And I believe, uh, we’ve seen places in this country that eliminate cash bail and people showing up to court are at a higher rate, um, then those places, parts of the country, where people do have cash bail and they are sitting for months at a time, um, years in some cases without a trial.
So we, we need to, uh, ensure that we are not supporting pretrial. We’re trying to end it. When I say defund, uh, the Sheriff Department or police departments, pretrial, pretrial is the first thing that comes to my mind simply because of it is simply a debtors’ prison. People that are poor are filled, filling these jails simply because they can’t pay an, uh, an arbitrary number that is not based on anything other than the person you’re sitting in front of, usually a magistrate, determined on what they’re gonna say, uh, your bond should be set at. So pretrial bail is America’s dirty war against poor people.

Van Huynh:
Um, I know this might be a little bit rhetorical but what would be the alternative to pretrial detention? So s- sort of lay it out for us. When somebody gets stopped or accused or charged of something, um, instead of arresting them and placing them in jail, you know, what would be the alternatives for that?

W. Mondale Robertson:
I think the alternative is the same thing we do for a speeding ticket. Uh, if you read, if you’ve ever read a speeding ticket it’s up there that this ticket is given to you, uh, as an alternative to arresting you. Uh, a citation is the alternative. Most things c- uh, can be handled or should be, uh, a citation is issued for the violation and people are left to live their lives until they’ve been convicted or, or set free.

Van Huynh:
Um, um, Amanda and, uh, Aisha I also want to invite y’all, um, in to, to talk about, like, what are your ideas as to, um, what would be the alternative to pretrial detention?

Amanda “Chavez” Barnes:
Yeah, I think, um, like, definitely what Mondale said. You know, there’s, there’s really not a reason, um, to detain people before trial. Uh, I know some people propose ankle monitors and things like that and I don’t think that’s a solution either. There’s no reason there to do E-carceration, um, it’s just incarceration by a different name and it ends up, you know, winds up in people becoming incarcerated, um, you know, qui- more quickly.
And in addition to that I think another issue that we see a lot is, um, that people, the only reason people are, are in jail or even, you know, pretrial is because they weren’t able to pay some fees that were set up by the probation system. So another thing to go even a step farther than that and doing exactly as Mondale said, you know, write a ticket, um, let people sign themselves on their recognizance rather than holding anyone, um, for money is stop putting p- people on probation. Um, it seems in so many cases that there’s no reason that people actually need to be on probation especially for these lengths of time. And I don’t have the statistics in front of me but I swear if y’all look this up, if you could see a bar graph of the, uh, number of people that are on probation in the state of Georgia as compared to other states around the country, it’s astronomical. And that’s something that really greatly contributes to people getting locked up. It might start off as a traff- traffic ticket, right, that somebody wrote. Then you show up to pay the traffic ticket and you don’t have the, the funds so you’re put on probation. Then what ends up happening, you end up going to jail anyway.
So, um, charging people fines should, should not be a thing that happens. The trans woman who I mentioned earlier actually that whole incident started because of a $15 seatbelt fine. Um, and so just eliminating, um, you know, fines and fees in general and not, not putting so many people on probation would also help to just cut back on the, the problem existing in the first place of people being criminalized. Um, there’s no need for the vast majority of people that are put into these, uh, you know, situations where they’re being criminalized and being surveilled. Um, most of them could be handled if we diverted funds away from law enforcement and actually had social workers and actual real mental health services, um, actual services to support the poor and working class people of our community, um, instead of making all of that money go to a court, uh, judicial, and, um, criminal system that only sees a revolving door of tracking people in, you know, as Mondale really directly said, de- basically a system of debtors’ prisons. Um, and, and as the United Nations, you know, human rights standards would say, arbitrary detention. And these are human rights violations.

W. Mondale Robertson:
470,000, almost 500,000 people in Georgia are on probation. That’s quadruple, uh, if you look at the population Georgia, that’s quadruple the nation’s average. So it’s absolutely disgusting that so many people are on probation. And we know once people are on probation or parole they’re more likely to, uh, recidivate, end up back in prison and usually it’s because of a fine or something silly. So Amanda’s absolutely right.

Aisha:
Yeah, I, I also wanna touch on something Amanda mentioned around decriminalizing. Um, you know, we, we hear a lot around decriminalizing marijuana, um, but one thing that we’ve been really pushing for and what we’re seeing folks push for, um, especially in places like Athens, Clarke County, with the great work of the, um, Athens’ Immigrant Rights Coalition there, um, uh, is decriminalizing driving. Um, everyone in Georgia needs to be able to drive to get somewhere. That is a fact. You cannot live and work in the state of Georgia, um, unless you have access to a vehicle or you have access to someone who can drive a vehicle.
Um, unfortunately Georgia has also made it a crime to drive without a license, um, and undocumented people in this state can’t get a driver’s license. So we ended up in this cycle where if you are undocumented you can’t get a driver’s license, you have to drive to get to work, and you might have to drive through Cobb County or Gwinnett County or Hall County to get to your job. Well what’s gonna happen if you get picked up? You’re gonna get in contact with ICE and it starts this whole cycle all over again.
Um, one of the things that our partners on the ground are pushing for also is, um, access to driver’s licenses for everyone. So whether that’s undocumented people who currently don’t qualify for a state driver’s license or, um, pushing for, uh, additional mechanisms in place to allow for anyone who needs a driver’s license to get it. Right now it is extremely difficult for individuals who don’t have the original criteria to get a driver’s license. Um, for example, if you, um, are, uh, just being released from prison, uh, you may not have original paperwork that you need to actually get a driver’s license. Um, if you are going through, um, if you are a transient person and don’t have access to paperwork that you might have had when you lived in another state it’s hard to get a driver’s license. And so, um, w- what we’re pushing for at the state level is-

 

Speaker 1:
… legislation that will make it easier for anybody to get a driver’s license regardless of immigration status or, um, what paperwork that they have. And so, I think these types of measures, uh, pushing for decriminalization of driving, which just simply means, you know, you should not be getting arrested if you don’t have a driver’s license, or you should not be getting arrested if you are driving with a broken tail light, um, because I think that these things don’t just impact immigrant communities, they impact anyone who has ever driven a vehicle in their life.

Speaker 2:
Yeah, thank you, Aisha. Um, I think one of the theme that I’m sort of getting that y’all are picking on is, is there’s a lot of things that we need to change (laughs) about the county jail, um, and about what is it that sheriffs are doing. Um, and I think oftentimes though, people on a day-to-day don’t really interact with the sherif, right? I think folks are… regular folks don’t really know… they might not know who their sheriff is, they might not know what is it that they’re doing. Um, but I think one of the things is that the sheriff is, is a huge public figure, you know, they have a lot of influence and control over things. Um, so I’d love for y’all to just talk about, like, what is the sheriff doing, right? How is he able to sort of wield such influence over these policy consideration, um, and, and I think also really impact the way that certain counties look at immigrant communities, you know, look at the way, um, that the, the county jails hold people. Um, and [inaudible 00:01:30] ask Amanda if, if you have any thoughts about that, just ’cause I know, um, the sheriff in, in Cobb County in particular, um, has a very huge presence.

Amanda “Chavez” Barnes:
Yeah, definitely. And, um, you know, even, even the sheriff in Gwinnett County too, um, I saw recently, even though, you know, he’s not ready for reelection, um, there was a primary for a republican, um, position, and he endorsed, uh, one of the candidates. And his main quote, um, for endorsement of the candidate was that she’s the only candidate that he trusts to support local law enforcement and ensure our work to crack down on criminal illegals remains successful, and then said that her opponent was bankrolled by an open borders organization. Now, to be clear, her opponent was also a republican candidate in the primary, um, so his statement was really, you know, a very strong anti-immigrant statement that he was making. Really the only thing that he said in his endorsement of her was that she’s gonna continue to go after these criminal illegals. So that shows you, you know, even though he’s not going to continue to be sheriff, he knows that his position as a sheriff, being able to make an endorsement, um, of this candidate for, for federal, um, for congressional office is going to wield influence. And he chooses to make that entirely an anti-immigrant stance.
Similarly, in Cobb County, um, Neil Warren has been really public and on the record about how anti-immigrant he, he is. And, um, one case in particular that really sticks out in my mind was the case of Jessica [inaudible 00:03:19] who was a student at Kennesaw State University when I was a student at Kennesaw State University, um, and just a few months after I graduated, um, she ended up being, um, stopped while she was actually waiting to park, um, in a student parking lot because one of the officers on campus said that she was blocking the flow of traffic. This is something that would happen all the time, that students are looking for a place to park or waiting for somebody to move and, and park. She was clearly racially profiled, um, and she had an international driver’s license, um, but because she didn’t have papers, she didn’t have a Georgia driver’s license. Ended up getting arrested, ended up getting transferred to, um, Etowah Detention Center. Um, and the university president at the time, Dr. [inaudible 00:04:11], um, intervened to get her released.
Now, that could’ve been the end of it, that could’ve been the end of the conversation right there, the university president intervenes on her behalf to get her released. Well, because this is in the media, what did Sheriff Neil Warren wanna do? He wanted to make a statement. He wanted to make an example out of her. So he actually charged her with a federal offense, making false statement, because the doc- the address that was on a document when she was booked into Cobb County Detention Center wasn’t her actual address. That happens to so many of us. The address on my driver’s license, I’m already like three addresses from… you know, I haven’t lived there in years. That’s a very normal thing. But because they, um, were looking for something to charge her with, Sheriff Neil Warren sent people out, using time and resources to send people out to this address to see if she lived here, um, in order to find something to charge her with. So charges her with a federal offense, goes after her, is all up in the media talking about, you know, how this is wrong, how she should’ve have been allowed to be at the university in the first place.
And at the time, it was found that she had been paying in state tuition, which was a policy that had already been rescinded, but she had been grandfathered in because she had, um, entered the university system, you know, years before that had passed. But because she was being granted uni- uh, in state tuition, um, Neil warren asked the GBI, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to actually look into putting charges against the Georgia Board of Regents, which is the body over the university system of Georgia. And so is trying to put pressure on all these different areas that have nothing to do really with what, you know, his, his office is charged with, but trying to exert public pressure and public influence to send a message that, um… you know, he said something to the effect of, you know, “It is really unfortunate that her parents chose to come to this country illegally, and, but she is here unauthorized, and it’s my role to enforce the letter of the law.”
So, you know, no compassion, no humanity, just really playing politics, um, with this person’s life and sending a message to everyone, you know, to all undocumented students in the state of Georgia, um, beyond just Cobb County, but also, you know, to, to anyone in Cobb County that, um, it doesn’t matter, you know, what kind of a person you are, it doesn’t matter, you know, what you’re doing, if you happen to be undocumented, you are not welcome here. I don’t view as human, and I, you know, don’t value your life, and, you know, I’ll do anything I can to, to go after you and persecute you and, you know, separate you from your family if I can, and use county resources to do that. Um, so he made that really clear over and over again, and it, and it did have, uh, have an influence on the public narrative and the conversation for a really long time.

Speaker 2:
Thank you, Amanda. Um, thank you for providing us with that history. I think, you know, I think in general, we hear so much about, um, how sheriffs are terrible, and then it’s important to also be able to pinpoint specific instances, right, and, and show, like, they took proactive steps to really harm and hurt people, um, and this is not just a passive role that sheriffs play, um, in these larger discussions around immigration. Um, I think as, as also a part of that, um, uh, Aisha, I know you have done a lot of work, uh, within the Georgia legislature, um, uh, and sort of, like, pushing for more progressive policies. And, and I, I wanna talk about the Sheriff’s Association in that they’re sort of this, like, ghostly body that has so much influence in Georgia, um, but, you know, you don’t really see them, I don’t know who they are. Um, if you could just talk a little bit about, um, the ser- Sheriff Association, Association as a whole, um, and then what would it mean to have a progressive sheriff, um, to be able to support some of the policies that are pushed for by community organization.

Speaker 1:
Yeah. Um, for sure. And the Georgia Sheriff’s Association, you know, much like sheriff’s associations from across the country, um, are directly involved in a lot of the legislative work that happens that impact, obviously, their day-to-day lives. Um, it’s a lobbying entity much like other, um, you know, interest groups. Um, but the, the really interesting thing that we’ve seen over the past few years from the association at the state level is them actually coming in the way of really meaningful reforms that we’re trying to push or. Um, now, there are some really great organizations doing important criminal justice and immigrant justice work, um, and we’re seeing that the Sheriff’s Association is always involved in those conversations around what those reforms look like.
Um, the, the most recent example of that, um, has been that there are hearings going on, um, there have been hearings the last few weeks over a repeal of the citizen’s arrest law. Now, we have seen that the Sheriff’s Association has come out and spoken, um, not completely against the repeal, but in a way to signal that they’re not supportive of this repeal. Um, they have done similar, um, statements and, uh, come out similarly against really meaningful reforms that would impact, um, individuals at the jail. Um, but on the, on the flip side, they have always come out and supported extremely anti-immigrant enforcement measures. Um, anytime we’re down, we’re down there fighting against, um, immigrant enforcement mandates or, um, any anti-immigrant bills, they’re always there to support the, the, those measures.
And so, we’ve seen them as a force for, um, force against us, honestly, in some of these spaces. And they never fail to show up at the right time, um, they never fail to have the right type of influence. And I think that’s the really important thing to, to notice is that, you know, uh, as an elected sheriff of your county, um, your sheri- your county sheriff will also have an impact at the state level because they will have the ear of your county legislators, but they will also have the ear of the county sh- of the statewide Sheriff’s Association who then has the ear of the entire state legislat- state legislator… the legislature.
So what we’re looking for in a sheriff, and when, when I am hoping to elect, uh, you know, a sheriff that I support and that I think is progressive, what I want that to look like is someone who is willing to stand up for their communities, but to stand up to the Sheriff’s Association and to stand up in these political spaces where they will stand with us. Um, whether that means, uh, speaking out against the Sheriff’s Association when they are, um, in the wrong, but also coming to the state legislature and speaking around issues like immigrant enforcement, conditions in the jail, shackling of pregnant inmates and other issues that we know are important for our communities but don’t get talked about enough because the Sheriff’s Association has been such a loud voice for them at the, at the state level.
Now, um, what’s also really important to know that, um, you know, in the metro area, we’ve got sheriffs, uh, in Gwinnett, Cobb, Fulton, DeKalb, because these are the sheriffs that have really easy access to the physical building of the capitol. They have a lot of opportunity to come in and out of the capitol, make statements, um, give testimony, and what we, what we’ve seen so far is that Sheriff Conway of Gwinnett has been there, he’s always there. We see him in the halls ready to make statements against our communities. And if we can have just, uh, someone who is on our side come out and actually speak for our people, I think that will be, um, that will be a great step in moving forward some of these really important reforms that are not just for Gwinnett County, are not just for Cobb County, but for our state as a whole.

Speaker 2:
Yeah. Thank you for that, Aisha. Um, Mondale, I also wanna invite you in to give us your thoughts. Um, you know, sort of what do you see as the sheriff as this public figure? You know, what is it that we’re asking for, uh, from the sheriff to take public positions on things that we would want?

W. Mondale Robertson:
Yeah, I think, um, people underestimate the role of the sheriff as a, a lobbying, uh, figure, um, and important that… of that, of that role. If we had a sheriff that was progressive, um, um, advocating for the needs for the people, um, at the state legislature to the Sheriff Association, um, then we, we would be better off, and I think we’d have more progressive sheriffs in general. I think though because the Sheriff Association is so powerful, and no, and not a lot of sheriffs, if any, are speaking up against them or coming out against them in public, uh, you, you begin to see with great clarity the role of, of, of, of a silent shelf… um, sheriff, and how much harm is done because of that.
Um, I, I think, uh, the sheriff’s number one role should be advocating on behalf of people that are elected, him or her, uh, to office at the state legislature and also, uh, to the Sheriff Association at, at large. Unfortunately, um, as we see so often, it’s the other way around. They’re taking, they’re taking their cues from Sheriff Association, which tends to be, uh, a conservative body. We know this, um, because of their actions time and time again, um, and who they support and what, what, when they do… when they speak out, they being the Sheriff Association. So a sheriff that is not lobbying on behalf of his county, uh, is doing a disservice to the office and should be unelected for that very reason.
I, um, I also think, uh, harm is extended to, uh, marginalized communities when we have sheriffs that are bidding, or doing the bidding of conservative organizations like the Sheriff Association. The Sheriff Association should be labeled, um, also as a racist organization in this country. So many times, over and over again, we see the policies and the candidates they support, and they’re never for the betterment of our communities. So, um, a sheriff with an endorsement of the Sheriff Association is a, is a automatic turnoff for my organization and me personally, and also for the policies I stand up for and scream about.

Speaker 2:
Thank you, Mondale. Um, and I just wanna end, um, also with, Amanda, I wanna, like, invite you to give your input on, um, what is it you would imagine a sheriff to be? I know you have so many personal-

Speaker 5:
[inaudible 00:14:59]

Speaker 2:
… direct experiences interacting, uh, with a horrible sheriff in Cobb. Um, yeah, just, like, with this election, given that it’s an opportunity for us to see a different, um, what is it that we would hope to see, um, in some of these counties?

Amanda “Chavez” Barnes:
I mean, definitely not Sheriff Neil Warren, I’ll tell you that. (laughs) Um, actually, you know, we had heard that he was gonna step down, um, because of everything that had been coming to light, um, that he wasn’t going to run for reelection this year. Um, so, surprised that he’s still gonna show his face after everything, but also not surprised. Um, you know, of course I have much bigger and bolder and more expansive dreams for what our communities can be than just, you know, a different figure, um, but I do think that anything other than Sheriff Neil Warren would actually be an improvement for Cobb County. Um, any of the candidates that are, that are running, um, who are not Sheriff Neil Warren would be an improvement for the county, um, because, you know, everything that he’s put in place is so egregious, um, everything that he’s done is so egregious when you look at, you know, just top to bottom from the 287(g) program, from the anti-immigrant stances, from the way that the jail is being run, um, and the abuses that have gone on there. And even, um, even the, um, you know, lack of information, you know, in the Cobb County Jail they don’t allow certain newspapers to be read that speak out against, you know, Sheriff Neil Warren. (laughs) There’s only certain newspapers that are allowed to be disseminated, um, inside the Cobb County Jail.
So there’s, there’s so many things, um, that could be, could be changed, but to put it in a positive way, if we could just have a sheriff who’s [inaudible 00:16:51] about, um, you know, first of all, ending 287(g), who’s committed to end 287(g), um, but also is thinking about ways that people can be released from the jail, um, instead of blaming the issues on the jail on over s- or under-staffing, actually it’s, um, over incarceration is the problem, not under-staffing. So having people be released from the jail. And actually, you know, as, as, um, Aisha and Mondale have said, you know, really serving the people and seeing themselves as a figure, um, who’s representing the people who elected them and not serving, um, you know, these, these outside interests, um, looking at ways to actually make our community safer and not putting people into harm, just like we talked about, you know, at the top of the call, real safety, um, for our community, that’s, that’s the hope, that’s, that’s the dream for what, you know, what could happen in Cobb County, and, you know, all across Georgia and all across our communities.

Speaker 2:
Yeah. Thank you, Amanda. Um, I wanna be mindful of time. Um, I really appreciate this conversation. I wish that we had more time, um, to dive even deep to some of these subjects. Um, instead, I think we’re gonna have to close out soon. But before we do that, um, I’d love for folks listening to learn more about your organizations, the work that you’re currently doing. I know, um, between the three of you, y’all are doing so much right now, um, to get voters, uh, you know, engaged, educated on these issues, and then out to vote to really make an impact in November. Um, so if it’s cool with y’all, could I have you sort of, um, let folks know how they can get involved, what is it that you’re up to? Um, Aisha, I’ll start with you.

Speaker 1:
Yeah. Thanks, [inaudible 00:18:42]. Um, so we are really excited about, um, helping voters get out for the August 11th runoff. Um, I’ll share some information towards of the end of about early voting. Actually, I’ll just go ahead and drop it in the comments, ’cause I know we’re short on time. Um, but we’d love for folks to help us with volunteering if they’re available. We do, um, weekend phone banks, um, and we’ll be starting to do some text banking, um, towards the end of August. And you can learn more about our work and how to volunteer at asianamericanadvocacyfund.org. Very long, but, uh, it will get you to the right place.

Speaker 2:
Uh, thank you, Aisha. Uh, Mondale, can, can you let us know what is it that, um, Black Male Voters Project is up to?

W. Mondale Robertson:
Yeah. Uh, so, um, our, our mission is, is, is what we love by, and it’s, it’s pretty simple, we’re trying to make more black men super voters. Um, the way we’re doing that though is what, what becomes complicated because of the status quo. Um, by status quo, I mean traditional campaigning. We are in the process of changing the psyche of black men by reimagining what voting means. We’re making voting a part of, um, a security, [inaudible 00:19:51] voting as a solution to the problems, then we know more of them will participate in elections. So we’re out here doing sociol- sociology work, um, using, um, uh, a model that centers the voter and the community and not candidates or election dates. Um, and, and we’re doing that all over the South and then a few other places, and you can follow us at blackmalevoterproject.org. Thank you.

Speaker 2:
Thank you. Um, Amanda, a few words on Mijente’s work, um, ar- also GLAHR Action Network [inaudible 00:20:23].

Amanda “Chavez” Barnes:
Yeah, definitely. Uh, we’re really excited to be working with GLAHR Action Network and [inaudible 00:20:30] Power, um, in Georgia and, um, excited to be doing the Fuera Trump campaign, F-U-E-R-A T-R-U-M-P, um, campaign, um, all across the country to, to not only get Trump out, but particularly here in Georgia as Adelina Nicholls has said, um, you know, to vote out Trump and all those who mirror his policies here in the state of Georgia. Um, so it’s specifically targeted to Latinx voters, um, but even if you’re not in the state of Georgia, you can adopt the state of Georgia and help us reach voters [inaudible 00:21:03] even better. Um, so go to fueratrump.com and check us out, sign up to volunteer, or if you’re not in Georgia, sign up to vol- adopt the state of Georgia and throw down with us here in the work that we’re doing.

Speaker 2:
Yeah. Thank you. Um, and I’ll just close out by saying that if y’all are interested in getting involved with the GLAHR Action Network, um, you can reach us on our Facebook page, uh, it’s by the name, GLAHR Action, G-L-A-H-R, uh, Action Network. Um, if nothing else, I wanna thank you, um, Aisha, Mondale and Amanda for being with us tonight. I wanna thank you the interp… thank the interpreters, um, I know there were moments where we talked a little bit too fast, so we apologize for that. Um, but thank you so much. It’s such, uh, necessary work that y’all are doing. Um, big thank you to Mijente for just making sure we’re up and running, um, yeah, and [inaudible 00:21:59] technology, so I always appreciate people who do it. Um, but thank you y’all and I hope you have a good night.

 

 

 

 

* 16-9-121.1. Offense of aggravated identity fraud.

(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated identity fraud when he or she willfully and fraudulently uses any counterfeit or fictitious identifying information concerning a real, fictitious, or deceased person with intent to use such counterfeit or fictitious identifying information for the purpose of obtaining employment.

(b) The offense created by this Code section shall not merge with any other offense.

* 16-9-126. Penalty for violations.

(a) A violation of this article, other than a violation of Code Section 16-9-121.1 or 16-9-122, shall be punishable by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years or a fine not to exceed $100,000.00, or both. Any person who commits such a violation for the second or any subsequent offense shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three nor more than 15 years, a fine not to exceed $250,000.00, or both.

(a.1) A violation of Code Section 16-9-121.1 shall be punishable by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 15 years, a fine not to exceed $250,000.00, or both, and such sentence shall run consecutively to any other sentence which the person has received.

(b) A violation of this article which does not involve the intent to commit theft or appropriation of any property, resource, or other thing of value that is committed by a person who is less than 21 years of age shall be punishable by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than three years or a fine not to exceed $5,000.00, or both.

(c) Any person found guilty of a violation of this article may be ordered by the court to make restitution to any consumer victim or any business victim of such fraud.

(d) Each violation of this article shall constitute a separate offense.

(e) Upon a conviction of a violation of this article, the court may issue any order necessary to correct a public record that contains false information resulting from the actions which resulted in the conviction.

* OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Enforcement by investigators of Enforcement Division of the State Board of Workers’ Compensation. —

Investigators of the Enforcement Division who are certified as peace officers may enforce the aggravated identity fraud statute, O.C.G.A. § 16-9-121.1, by arrest and the execution of search warrants provided that the arrest and search is the result of a criminal investigation of an alleged violation of the workers’ compensation laws of O.C.G.A. Ch. 9, T. 34. 2012 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 12-3.

Transcript by Rev.com – My cost $124.00 and about three hours of my time. dak

House Public Safety committee hearing on HB 1105, Feb. 21, 2024.

VIDEO HERE.

The below transcript begins at the close of the bill sponsor presenting the measure and is testimony by individuals who signed up to speak. Sign up sheet below.

Committee Chairman:
… author of the bill before we… Mr. Norris you have anything you wanna say? If you’ll go to the podium, please. I’m referring to Terry Norris with the sheriff’s association.

Terry Norris, GA Sheroff’s Association lobbyist:
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Uh, deja vu all over again. So, uh, thank you [inaudible 00:00:20]. So a couple of things. Uh, we do not know how many sheriffs are not reporting to ICE on that security. Um, there’s been some inquiries by others who may have information. Uh, it is the policy, of course, of the Georgia Sheriffs Association to comply for… to train the sheriffs on compliance with law. And as such, we did, uh, and the representative placed some of our training, uh, variables into the bill.
So, to make it perfectly clear, perfectly clear, we don’t know how many sheriffs we present. There are some, because some have said they wouldn’t, number one. Number two, we have trained on this issue. We will continue to training… to train on the issue. But there’s a, there- there’s a piece to this that we don’t understand and that is how this check actually occurs. The representative described in general how it does occur. It is… And we’re trying to find this out now. We are trying to reach out to GCIC to see that when we do a name check on Terry Norris, how that check runs toward the law enforcement support group to identify whether I’m here legally.
We’re a little fuzzy on that, so we are, as I said, looking into that. So hopefully before a subsequent conversation, assuming there is one, we’ll be able to describe that process more. There’s a real important fundamental value to all this. If the Department of Homeland S- US Department of Homeland Security and ICE has never had contact with Terry Norris, they’re not going to know whether I’m illegal or not ’cause I’m in the country. So far fewer people that they’re running the criminal history record check on are getting any kind of response from ICE, DHS. That was told to me by one of the sheriffs this week.
So when there is a return of a, “Uh, yes, we know Terry is here illegally, and what’s he charged with?” That kind of conversation, then sometimes a detainer is placed on that person. If it’s not a serious felony offense, Terry Norris is gonna get out of jail just like any citizen of, of the s- United States is, if there’s a bond, $24, 48. So there- there’s a lot of fuzz out there for us in understanding this whole process.
In terms of the bill, we said it the other day, and we’ll repeat it. If a sheriff is not complying with whatever this process is and is intentionally not doing it, you know, certainly, they should be doing it and certainly, there should be a sanction. Our recommendation on the sanction was to create a, a situation where it’s a violation of oath of office. If there is a violation of oath of office, presently in our law, the governor can appoint two sheriffs and the attorney general to look at the situation, misfeasance, malfeasance, violation of, of the law.
So there’s something already in the law that exists and our recommendation would be rather than criminalizing it through a misdemeanor of higher nature, uh… aggravated nature to use that code section. And finally, as important to us at the sheriff’s association, I said to you all the other day, we- we’ve stood up a more robust jail reporting system. We wanna know who’s in jails. Not only, uh, illegals, but how many are on probation, parole, whatever it is. Because we wanna give the General Assembly a more accurate picture of what criminal justice reform and other state policies have done for the local jail population.
A lot of people in jail now are there. In the past, they may have been in prison. They’re on probation. Vast majority of people in jail now are on probation. And these are people that should be in the state prison system, but no, they’re not. They’re in the county jail. So what does that mean? You and I as local property taxpayers are paying for all sorts of drugs, psychotropics, and everything else. So our jail, not to didre- digress, but our jail population is an important thing for you all to know about.
This would be a very important addition to that jail population report. So those two things are what we have in mind. Again, we, we want to better understand this whole process of going through GCIC to Homeland Security and ICE. And if we’ve got sheriffs not doing it, we’ll be the first ones to try to help them understand the need to do it.

Committee Chairman:
Fair enough. Any questions for Terry? Representative Lott.

Representative Lott:
Uh, Mr. Norris, thanks for being here, thank you for all of that. So you kind of got me thinking about a few things, but is, is the other reporting, uh, required some of… Do we know, you were talking about transparency, do we know our jail population even beyond this concept?

Terry Norris:
By, by individual jail we do. And we started this new jail report. As I mentioned the other day, the State Department of Community Affairs did a very simple jail report up until last year or earlier in the previous year. So we took it upon ourselves to do the jail report. You know, we work for the sheriffs. We have the best line of communication with the sheriffs of anybody in this state. So we’ve often, in my 30-year career, we’ve often had to go to a sheriff and say, “Sheriff, you do realize you have to do this. Or, Sheriff, you’ve got open records requests on this. Have you thought about replying to it?”
So we think that… I don’t think we need legislation to do it, although it would help me get compliance with my jail report. We’ve got about half the sheriffs that are… that have jails, 142 jails in Georgia, about 38,000 people in county jails. So about half of those, a little less than half, are reporting to us. And it is our constant, uh, challenge to get these more, more and more sheriffs and jails on board. The hang-up a lot of times is their jail management system and integrating their software system with what we’re trying to… the data we’re trying to collect.

Representative Lott:
So, further in question, just in relating to what Representative Petrea is doing, is there any benefit or is it too complicated to add the additional reporting, um, requirements? Um, may- I, I know that I know what the representative probably said, that’s probably just complicating his bill, but you, um… but we have a lot of sort of lease ends in our jail, including how long our folks have been there.

Terry Norris:
Mm-hmm.

Representative Lott:
Some of that plays to the DAs that are sort of doing a similar thing as, as your sheriffs, which is not, you know, not moving certain cases, that kind of thing. So does your agency have reporting on that, or again, it’s just half of your sheriffs-

Terry Norris:
Well-

Representative Lott:
… uh, your jails that are reporting?

Terry Norris:
… two, two answers. Um, half are reporting to us now. We’re continuing our, our, our, for lack of a better term, marketing to sheriffs to explain how important this is for them to report to us so that we can tell you, so that we don’t see something in a bill that says, “Sheriff, you’ve got to report this to the Department of Audit-”

Representative Lott:
Right.

Terry Norris:
… which to us, no disrespect, is totally unacceptable. You all are gonna be setting policy. We would disagree with that police. So we want our jail report to be the most robust possible. And as far as what goes into the jail report concerning this matter, you know, we certainly would want to not necessarily go line to line, even though we are trained in this way. For instance, there’s a part here that says that, uh, you’ve got a report on those that are in your jail illegal.
Well, how is the sheriff gonna do that? How do you determ- make that determination? Who do you go to? That’s not something that the sheriff’s able to do. If it is confirmed that this person is illegal and we’re following the law to determine whether I says they’re illegal, then yes, we wanna report that. Do we wanna report the number of detainers? Of course. We can report all of that. A little… A few of these things in here that we actually train on is somewhat unreachable to, to most of these sheriffs.

Representative Lott:
Thank you.

Committee Chairman:
Representative Evans.

Representative Evans:
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Yes, I guess, uh, that’s just a note I had and it sounds like you just talked about it. ‘Cause you were making your, your points and you said number three was how does the check work for law enforcement? How do, how do you go through G- GCIC? And so you’re saying, you… a lot of it’s unclear about how you’d be able to com- how your, your deci- how the sheriffs would be able to comply with this law?

Terry Norris:
Well, what I’m saying is, it all starts with an arrest.

Representative Evans:
Right.

Terry Norris:
And the arrest is not always done by the sheriff. The sh- arrest is sometimes done by the Atlanta Police Department, and goes to the Fulton County Jail, for instance.

Representative Evans:
Mm-hmm.

Terry Norris:
So when that person is arrested, that person is booked in jail, fingerprint, photograph, basic information. Unless that person admits when they come in the door that, “I was not born in this country,” we’re not gonna know. Especially if the, the next piece of that is that information is, is pushed along this arrest to the Georgia Crime Information Center. But what it ha- it does after that, and the representative mentioned this, the law enforcement support group, that’s the part that we’re a little bit unclear about.
Does, does that information come back to GCIC and they know that Terry Norris is… was not born in the country and ICE has been told about it, or is it something that the sheriff actually pushes themselves? And I don’t know the answer to that. I thought I did the other day. I, I testified more clearly about this until I started talking to more sheriffs. But I, I really believe, y’all, that we, we will do this. We need to find, uh, uh… We need to have a better conversation with GCIC to get this explained to us. And, uh, Representative [inaudible 00:10:45] and I talked about this the other day, and he… I think he agrees with that. Do, do you not agree with the GCIC thought?

Speaker 5:
[inaudible 00:10:50].

Terry Norris:
Uh, have I misstated? ‘Cause I, I mean, you, you seem to be more clear about some of this than I am.

Speaker 5:
Well, uh, so, you know, I want you to be thoroughly heard, uh, Mr. Norris, but here- here’s what I mean. To the question, so what this does, um, so I can’t imagine trying not to identify someone being placed into a jail. And what this does, uh, uh, the, the process is clearly outlined. You positively identify the individual. Uh, and it goes on to talk about a Form I-944. It talks about a passport. It talks about resident alien card. So individuals that are in the country, um, uh, even if they’re non-citizens, are required to have identification.
And all of those things are kind of described here. So there’s a multitude of ways we can try to discover who someone is. It would seem to me that that’s important, especially today. If you look at the news, if you look at polls, the number one concern in people’s minds today, we’ve had 10 million people in the last three years enter the country illegally, okay?
So, um, as a, as a matter of public safety, we should know who’s winding up in our jails for a multitude of crimes. And I, I have a hard time getting my head around that. Um, so a- again, I’m… Mr. uh, Mr. Norris has been most helpful to me. And I want every issue he has to be heard. But I have to also be honest with you and tell you this. This is a bill that’s been on… in the books for 18 years. 18 years. And, and basically, we’re hearing that half the sheriffs are doing it. I, I, you know, I have a hard time understanding that, Mr. Chairman. But, but, I, I want every concern. My sheriffs support this. I represent two of them. They’re all in.
They tell me they do it right. And they tell me it’s not a burden to do it right. But I’ve got a quote from a Georgia sheriff, I’m sure there’s others, “What we will not be doing is notifying ICE of anybody’s immigration status in the jail or any of our facilities.” So we can debate minutia all day long, and I wanna get the minutia right because it, it matters. But what we need to do is deal with an issue that I believe is very important to the public safety of this state. And I, I don’t want anything to derail that.
Glad to work the process out as long as we can ensure people are doing it and then they report it such that we know they’re doing it, I’m happy, Mr. Chairman.

Committee Chairman:
And we agree that everybody ought to be doing it.

Speaker 5:
Yes, sir.

Committee Chairman:
Absolutely.

Speaker 5:
Yes, sir.

Committee Chairman:
Representative [inaudible 00:13:37].

Representative Evans:
I have one more question, uh, for Chairman P- Petrea [inaudible 00:13:41]. Uh, do you think asylum seekers are illegal criminal aliens?

Speaker 5:
No, ma’am, I do not.

Representative Evans:
Okay.

Speaker 5:
They… But they have… they also have identification.

Representative Evans:
Uh-huh.

Speaker 5:
So we’re not talking about asylums. We’re not talking about anyone here on a visa-

Representative Evans:
Okay.

Speaker 5:
… or any kind of legal, a multitude of reasons.

Representative Evans:
Mm-hmm.

Speaker 5:
We’re talking about all we’re talking about. It, it… In other words, we’re talking about anybody, including US citizens. So if I’m in, in a jail-

Representative Evans:
Mm-hmm.

Speaker 5:
… they’re gonna possibly identify me, right?

Representative Evans:
Mm-hmm.

Speaker 5:
Shouldn’t we be doing that with everything? Are the, are the, are the citizens only subjected to something that non-citizens aren’t?

Representative Evans:
No.

Speaker 5:
Of course not.

Representative Evans:
No.

Speaker 5:
So what we’re talking about is positively identifying everyone who goes in a jail.

Representative Evans:
Yeah.

Speaker 5:
So it doesn’t matter who they are. (laughs) I mean, this is so [inaudible 00:14:27], I can’t, I can’t fathom, uh… I wanna otherwise, I wanna throw this out here if I could, uh, to my friend, um, Chairman Petrea. That rests back to a point that Mr. Norris was trying to make. I think we’re living in a fool’s paradise to believe that everybody that comes across the border is gonna have some type of form of identification.
All right. And so, so, right. What are we gonna do about those people that just… We don’t have anything, and we don’t know who they are, we don’t know where they came from. They don’t have fingerprint. They don’t have a history, they’ve just showed up on the doorstep of America. And they have been accused of committing a crime. So, so how are we gonna ask our share of the report those, those people? Mr. Chairman the bill only requires… the current statute only requires they report that to ICE.

Committee Chairman:
They don’t [inaudible 00:15:23]-

Speaker 5:
They can fingerprint them like they do everybody else and send it to ICE and go home. The measure… You’ve got to remember, ’cause it gets obfuscated sometimes, they don’t have to do anything but send it electronically to, to, to the Feds.

Committee Chairman:
There’s no [inaudible 00:15:39].

Speaker 5:
There- there’s pushing a button and saying, “Here’s the guy. Can’t find any identification. I’ve tried all these avenues.” And by the way, if you’re interested, look on 51 on down, the multitude of ways, whether they have a passport. If they don’t have any of that. “Here’s who I got. He’s in for a crime of rape or whatever.” And you’ve reported it to ICE. To, Terry’s point, they may not know anything about this individual, but they may.

Committee Chairman:
Right.

Speaker 5:
Okay. But they may. And if they don’t, your, your obligation, your duty is to do nothing but report.

Committee Chairman:
Very clear.

Speaker 5:
We’re not asking them to do anything after reporting.

Committee Chairman:
Very clear.

Speaker 5:
It’s very simple.

Committee Chairman:
Representative Cummings.

Representative Cummings:
Thank you. I don’t know if you were aware there was an article in the AJC that came out in 2019 about this. And there seems to be a cost. I know Gwinnett from 2009, the, the time of the reporting in 2019, they had paid 15 million to comply with the program. And Bartow County tried to comply with the program for 13 months, and then they sent in something to ICE saying they couldn’t participate ’cause they had a staff shortage.
So I’m just wondering if you had… you knew about any of that ’cause not every sheriff’s department is not complying just to be not complying? And if somebody has a staff shortage, and we know a lot of law enforcement agencies do have staff shortages now, and that the sheriff determines, “I don’t have a lot of immigrants, it’s not worth it, and we don’t have the time, you know, to staff with the money,” how is that going to be dealt with?

Speaker 5:
You know, yes, ma’am, I can speak to that. I think what you… I don’t know about the specific situation, but I know what you’re talking about. You’re talking at a pro- about a program called 287(g). 287(g) is completely unrelated to this discussion. So yes, formerly the Sheriff of Gwinnett County and Cobb County worked with 287(g). New leadership came in and did away with that. I would suggest it was a lot… look at the comment I just read to you, it’s a lot more to that, uh, the reasons for discontinuing that program than funding.
However, to your good point and fair point about the cost to a system, they don’t have to work with 287(g). That is a completely separate issue. Remember, the current statute doesn’t say you have to work with the 287(g) through the federal program. It says you have to report to ICE when, when non-citizens are in your jails. Nothing more. It is literally pushing a button, sending information to the Law Enfor- Law Enforcement Support Center of the United States, Department of Homeland Security, and you’re done.
So that… So there is no fiscal issue here, but it’s a very good point because I think it’s helpful to let everybody know we’re not talking about 287(g), which some systems work with, some don’t. That is a completely different issue. Re- Representative Sainz, you have a question [inaudible 00:18:35].

Committee Chairman:
Thank you. And, I, uh, uh, I initially marked to, uh, to clarify that statement ’cause, I, I, say, the author is much more knowledgeable than, than I am, but has already cleared that. But I wanted to, uh, highlight ’cause I think it’s important, uh, e- e- even if there’s a small cost, but not to that level, uh, what we’re saying here is that it is a public safety data point to ensure that we have a consistent information on monitoring, um, those in our jail that may or may not stay there, may or may not be adjudicated in different capacities, who in our jail we have accurate understanding is, is here legally or not, because that has different public safety implications on finding them, um, having them in our GCI system, being able to find them for warrants, et cetera. Is that the, the summary of the public safety need?

Speaker 5:
I, I think so, Mr. Chairman, and to your point, we all know, unfortunately, that, uh, the, the level of recidivism, uh, in our criminal populations, all criminal populations, which are mostly our own citizens, we know the re- level of recidivism. We don’t know who this person is. How do we know they didn’t… Perhaps they were just, uh, com- they, they were just in a jail in adjacent state for some other crime. This is about public safety. And yes, I think, um, I, I, think, I, I, think people recognize that.

Committee Chairman:
Just one-

Speaker 5:
[inaudible 00:19:54]. Do you have my papers? Yeah.

Committee Chairman:
One small follow-up, because I think it’s, it’s, uh, important to make clear, um, there’s some questions about asylum seekers being confused to this, which is clearly not a, um, uh… associated. But thi- this is a pro-legal immigration bill. Is it not true that those that are vu- left vulnerable, uh, uh, by those who, uh, would come out of jail, be unmonitored, are, uh, oftentimes those in, in our, uh, minority communities? So this is a pro-safety bill, a pro-legal immigrant bill, and it’s purely just ensuring that our state has an accurate depiction of this population.

Speaker 5:
I would say it’s not, I was say, sir, chairman, this is, uh, a pro, uh, everybody in Georgia bill. If you’re interested in public safety. And yes, to your point, if you have people, uh, not in the country, their, their, their, their victims tend to oftentimes be in that same community. Um, this is about sim- simple public safety. And to your question, you know, I, I finally have your report. Does everybody have a copy of this?

Committee Chairman:
Yes.

Speaker 5:
Right. So, listen, uh, the… is it important? I don’t know. There’s at least 241, uh, children who have been molested in this state, according to the ICE detainers, by people illegally in this country. Do their families care? I, I suspect they do. What about the 182 murderers? That’s at least 182 people Georgians murdered.

Committee Chairman:
Those are people that have been convicted of murder inside our prison system.

Speaker 5:
That’s convic- This is just in… And this is just in a jail.

Committee Chairman:
Yeah.

Speaker 5:
Let’s just make sure we know who is in this country if they’re committing crimes. This is very simple, Mr. Chairman.

Committee Chairman:
Now we’re gonna hear from Mr. Norris. You have one more comment. We’ve got few people-

Terry Norris:
One more comment, uh, for clarity’s purposes. We fingerprint and ID everybody that comes to a jail-

Committee Chairman:
Mm-hmm.

Terry Norris:
… for a lot of reasons, mainly liability. Who’s in there? So I, I didn’t want the communi- the committees to think that we did not. We, we fingerprinted and it goes to the Georgia Crime Information Center, to the National Crime Information Center, to the US Department of Homeland Security, ICE, those places. But if we don’t get anything back, a warrant or… a warrant on someone, they can get out of jail like anybody else. And they should get out, because nobody wants them, uh, other than this particular offense, which I call, just for that, that purpose. [inaudible 00:22:10].

Committee Chairman:
We’ve got several people that want to speak and what I would say to you is we’re, we’re, we’re losing our, our room here and we’ve, uh, we’ve heard a lot of, uh, comments about this and I’m gonna give… part of the legislative process is to give you a voice over here. We want you to be able to, to speak. Uh, we’re gonna give you three minutes. If you wanna all line up on… behind the podium there. We’re gonna start off with Jennifer Lee. Jennifer Lee. Next behind her will be Jennifer Lopez. If you’ll be clear and concise and to the point, please.

Jennifer Lee:
All right, thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Jennifer Lee and I’m the policy director at Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta. We’re a non-profit legal organization, uh, dedicated to protecting the rights of Asian American and other immigrant communities in Georgia. Um, one of the things my organization does is provide immigration legal services to a wide variety of clients.
So our attorneys do things like assist individuals through the US citizen application process, um, and sometimes help them obtain lawful status. Um, we’re also involved with policy advocacy at the federal level to address certain flaws in immigration law that have harmed some of our clients. And so I just wanna lift up a couple of examples because I think it’s important for everyone to understand that immigration law, um, is, is not black and white. It’s, it’s, it’s very complicated, um, and there are a couple examples, um, that we’ve seen with our clients I’d like to lift up.
And first is the case of international adoptees. So hundreds of thousands of children have been internationally adopted by US citizens since the 1940s, and prior to the passage of the Child Citizenship Act in the year 2000 as a federal law, adopted children were not automatically granted US citizenship. Um, many adoptees and their families incorrectly believe that their children did become citizens upon adoptions. And there was a, uh, attempt to update that flaw, um, i- with the Child Citizenship Act, which did update that policy. So fortunately, that is federal law now.
But it left out a lot of adoptees that were born before 1983 who do not receive those same protections. So many of those older adoptees that we see now in our communities are in legal limbo and have been vulnerable to deportation. Um, another related flaw, uh, related to that same Child Citizenship Act, there are many individuals who were children when they moved to the US to live with their fathers, and their fathers naturalized to US citizenship. Today, these children would become US citizens because they have US citizen fathers.

Committee Chairman:
60 seconds.

Jennifer Lee:
Thank you. But in the past, this did not apply to many parents who did not have legal marriages that were recognized in the US. And again, that policy change was not made re- retroactive. We have represented…

 

 

Speaker 1:
… who’ve lived in the US. For nearly all their lives, they believed themselves to be US citizens and then were deported because of these flaws in immigration policies. So these are just a couple of examples. Um, we believe that mandating local officials to do this type of blink in immigration enforcement, um, just incorrectly targets, um, limited policing resources. And we’re afraid that all may mistakenly affect, um, harm families and communities, um, in our state. And so, um, thank you for your consideration and understanding that some of these, um, cases are just very complicated and, um, people can get caught up in sort of these aggressive policies. Thank you.

Committee Chairman:
Okay. If you don’t break the law, you will get caught up in this-this legislation. Next we have Jennifer Lopez.

Jennifer Lopez:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Jennifer Lopez and I’m with the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, also known as GLAHR. GLAHR is a nonprofit community grassroots organization that educates, uh, organizes, and empowers the Latinx community across Georgie to defend, uh, to defend and advance their civil, uh, and human right.
So we are here today to oppose HB 1105. And the majority of this language, uh, in the legislation echoes Secure Communities which is a former DHS program, um, that was discontinued in 2017. The program identified undocumented individuals who had been arrested but even for violations as minor as a traffic stop. So just like HB 1105, the Secure Communities program was flawed and did not target convicted criminals who are deemed violent and dangerous. And in 2011, 26% of those deported through Secure Communities were only guilty of being undocumented and had no previous criminal charges.
Because the targeted people at the time of arrest have no conviction, Secure Communities detained individuals who never charged, but the state crime as well as those who were wrongfully arrested. Additionally, HB 1105 will cause the unlawful detention of US citizen. The use of the phrase suspected national … uh, for a national racism concerns of increased racial profiling in arrest proceedings.
For example in 2008, Jilmar Ramos G-Gomez who served in as a US Marine, um, was issued an ICE detainer even after, you know, his proof of citizenship was available. He was in custody for almost a month. So this bill would put officers and sheriffs in a difficult situation opening-opening up cases of civil and human rights violations.
GLAHR has sent numerous letters throughout the years to share its offices in order to help them understand the detainer policies and avoid costly liabilities. We urge to take everything I’ve stated in consideration and vote No to HB 1105. Thank you.

Committee Chairman:
Thank you. Thank you very much for the vote. We got Kyle Gomez Leineweber.

Kyle Gomez Leineweber:
Leineweber.

Committee Chairman:
Leineweber.

Kyle Gomez Leineweber:
Yes, sir.

Committee Chairman:
Okay.

Kyle Gomez Leineweber:
Thank you.

Committee Chairman:
Go ahead.

Kyle Gomez Leineweber:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and uh, members of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee. Uh, my name is Kyle Gomez Lieneweber. Uh, I’m the Director of Public Policy for, uh, the-the GALEO Impact Fund. Uh, our organization advocates for and uplifts the voices of Latino throughout our great state. To that end, I stand before you today to express our serious concerns with this bill. Uh, particularly we have concerns, uh, around the, uh, language … excuse me, language around mandating jailers to identify inmates as suspected foreign nationals. Uh, it’s not only vague on the actual process, but it establish, uh, that it establishes, but it would likely lead, uh, to racial profiling.
The bill will not just lead to dis-disproportionate disruption of lives for low-level offenses, or even charges that are ultimately cleared, but given the aforementioned language and the re- and the reality of an immigration that I think everyone here agrees is broken, uh, uh, it is likely that our answers, particularly our Latino citizens and legal residents will be unnecessarily put at risk. Uh, we’ve seen this play out with programs like 287G, uh, and instances where citizens and legal residents, uh, who happened to be Latino were deported.
Uh, if passed, this legislation will drive a wedge between local public safety official and the communities they serve. This will be especially true in the business and communities where trust of law enforcement is already tenuous. This creates an additional burden and responsibility for local jurisdictions at a time when jails are understaffed, uh, struggle with overcrowding, and basic upkeep. Programs like this have been tried before with no tangible success in making our communities safe. According to DGPI, between 2008 and 2018, local governments spent $88 to participate in 287G. Today just 6 of Georgia’s 159 counties participate in 287G. And we understand this is not 287G, but there are similarities in process and, we believe, in impact.
Uh, this ta-

Committee Chairman:
30 seconds.

Kyle Gomez Leineweber:
Thank you.
These types of unfunded mandates are not the kind of support our communities need. Overall HB 1105, if it becomes law will almost immediately get tied up in courts with the Georgia taxpayers’ expense. Uh, and even if this bill were to be enforced, the result would be a costly, discriminatory, and disruptive program that will hurt Georgia communities, businesses, and families.

Committee Chairman:
Thank you for your time. Mr. Surinam? Surinam? Miss Rhea?

Rosario Palacios:
Is it Rosario?

Committee Chairman:
One more time?

Rosario Palacios:
Rosario Palacios?

Committee Chairman:
Uh, let’s see. Sure.

Rosario Palacios:
Okay. (laughs)

Committee Chairman:
Go ahead. (laughs)

Rosario Palacios:
Thank you.

Committee Chairman:
You got three minutes.

Rosario Palacios:
Yes, sir. Thank you, Ch- uh, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the committee. My name is Rosario Palacios and I’m a mother of four, uh, a caregiver to my spouse and my brother. I’m also the Executive Director to Georgia Familias Unidas. I dedicate a lot of my time volunteering to my community promoting higher education and tech skills and the professional of-of the community that I serve. I’m also a former poultry plant worker which is why Georgia Familias Unidas was started, to aid a lot of folks in Gainesville who have worked in poultry or their parents worked in poultry.
And so, I come today as someone who shares many lived experiences with the community that I hope to advocate for when it comes to some of the non-intended implications of laws like this. Um, I have reviewed the language in this legislation. I’ve not only, uh, lived these experiences, I’ve served as a policy anas- analyst for nonprofit organizations for eight years.
Section 3 of this legislation requires more process and changes what federal law were using as the standard for what is deemed as someone who should be targeted or should be, uh, detained and held for-for further questioning and further profiling.
So this law has gaps that I worry about for at drivers of domestic violence. And I bring this up as a survivor myself. Growing up in Gainesville undocumented, I saw my US citizen father leverage his privilege and status of his own children and my mother who survived many, many years in physical abuse.
I also can say this as a survivor of domestic violence myself. That when I was a legal permanent resident before I became naturalized, I thought twice about calling law enforcement because if there is any kind of scratch on the abuser from, uh, from me defending myself, then I knew what would happen. I knew that, uh, law enforcement could take both of us into custody, and then that my immigration status would be in question.

Committee Chairman:
60 seconds.

Rosario Palacios:
Thank you. I have lived these things firsthand. I know what, uh, systems like 287G looks like, and I’ve reviewed the language in Section 3. I know that Section 3, uh, DB, doesn’t even allow for any kind of paperwork that I have as naturalized citizens. And I think of people like my sister, Maria Estelle, who came into the border, was allowed into by immigration officials as an asylum seeker and I think what- like I have lived like my mother has lived before. So I ask that this committee look through Section 3 much, much more. Honestly, I oppose the entire bill, but Section 3 doesn’t just have implications for sheriffs, it also has implications for people who are detained and not convicted of any crimes. And as a domestics violence survivor and as one who serves the community of many mothers struggling with this issue, I ask that you please consider their cases and vote No on this legislation.

Committee Chairman:
Thank you very much.

Rosario Palacios:
Thank you.

Committee Chairman:
We appreciate your being here with us today. Geovani Serrano. And then after Giovani, we’ll have Gigi, uh, Pedraza. Go ahead. You have three minutes please.

Geovani Serrano:
Hi, good afternoon, uh, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Uh, my name is Geovani Serrano. I am a community organizer with the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, GLAHR. And today, we are here to oppose HB 1105. Uh, there is already a prog- a federal program that the Department of Homeland Security purports to focus its real status check programs. Uh, that is known as the Criminal Apprehension Program, CAP, on immi- on immigrants with zero criminal background. On the this program, individuals in jails or prison may be iden-identified by CAP when they have only pending charges, and will be included as CAP removals even if they have never been committed of a crime.
Um, according to Department of Homeland Security statistics, 11% of immigrants apprehended on their CAP are not criminals at all. For instance, in October 2009, the initial report found that 50% of immigrants identified through the CAP in year 2009 have no criminal convictions at all. Uh, in a- also in a study conducted by the GBPI, uh, they found out that during 2003 to 2020, most of the undocumented people who were apprehended in Georgia committed low-level, uh, or non-violent infractions. The approach to enforcement on HB 1105 focuses broadly on the apprehension on undocumented immigrants not just those with criminal record. And prioritizing immigration enforcement over a broader pub-public safety concerns result to insignificant compounding currently to immigrant community with signs to increasing this predatory practices within 2019 to 2020, where-where political parties do not have any leverage for their political platforms and nothing else to in lieu their support and increasing anti-immigrant sentiment to win political campaigns.
Moreover, um, HB, uh, 1105, uh, pose an extra burden, uh, on those who are already struggling with retention of officers and admin- um, by punishing, uh, by the punishment in this bill, it makes this job even less appealing to potentially have more people applying- have more running the anti-jails, which we know is a major issue all acla- across the star- state of Georgia.
In addition, in this year, uh, where a legislative body is focusing on protecting our youth, uh, we cannot take for granted that in our state, in-in the state of Georgia, Latinx teens with a family member who is detained or been deported, have experienced an increased suicidal iden- identification, alcohol consumption, and aggressive behavior. This is why one of the reasons why we urge you to vote No in HB 1105, because it has a major currents on our youth who are-are experiencing many, uh, many cases and with lack of, uh, mental health, uh, uh, services in the state of Georgia is causing many of them to potentially be detained and sent to-to county jails too as well. So, thank you.

Committee Chairman:
Thank you for being here today. Gigi?

Gigi Pedraza:
Good afternoon. My name is Gigi Pedraza. I’m the Executive Director of the Latino Community Fund in Georgia.

Committee Chairman:
[inaudible 00:12:14]

Gigi Pedraza:
We are a nonprofit organization. Yes.

Committee Chairman:
Okay, go ahead.

Gigi Pedraza:
Nonprofit organization working to advance people’s democracy, protecting and building community, and expanding economic opportunity. Today I am here to bring some examples of the imperfect records that exist at the immigrations and customs informant- enforcement office just as Director Norris mentioned. Between 2002 and 2017, there were over 2,800 American citizens I had wrongly identified as eligible for deportation. Today I will share three of them that actually pursued legal ac-action, one of them in Georgia.
Mark Lidel, in 2018. Lidel, um, was a citizen that was deported to Mexico because of the records that I provided. He was held for six weeks with no legal assistance and deported. From Mexico, he was deported to Honduras because he was not a Mexican national. In Honduras, he was imprisoned and jailed for weeks. From there, he was deported to Guatemala where he was eventually able to reach the US embassy. The US embassy talked to his brother who served in the military, was able to get a passport, a US passport. He was able to fly back to Georgia where for hours he was detained. There was- There is a legal case in Georgia because of this case. That was 2018.
There was a similar case, Eduardo Caravaggio in 2011, Sergio Carillo in 2017. So again, these are just three cases that I bring to your attention. We believe that the language, uh, is imprecise in this bill. We believe the process is extremely difficult to be implemented. Um, and then the places and then the wording on local jurisdictions like our colleagues said here. Additionally, this created additional expenses to taxpayers in Georgia. Thank you for your time. We are opposed to the bill.

Committee Chairman:
Thank you. We have, uh, next, David Schaefer. Is it David Shaffer?

David Schaefer:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name’s David Schaefer. I’m the Vice-President of Research and Policy of the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute. Our aim is to advance lasting solutions that expand economic opportunities for all Georgians. We rise in opposition to this bill. In addition to agreeing with the sentiments, uh, provided, uh, by others in this room, I do want to highlight that, uh, we are unclear how much this thing would cost, and we think that there could be fairly fiscal implications. A colleague from GALEO has already mentioned on figure, uh, around $88 million just to give one as to, you know, the cost of detainer enforcement from 2008 to 2017 to Georgia’s city and county governments, but also to say that many times the feds are not covering this cost. And federal grants are really only covering about 3% to 10% of the cost reimbursements, uh, in, uh, the enforcement of detainers. So, without a fiscal lid on this bill, uh, without really a sense of what the cost is, it’s-it’s very difficult to make a, I think, a wise decision on its implementation.
In addition, I’d like to say, after working on this area for 20 years including as an immigration attorney, there are a lot of unintended consequences. People do get caught up in systems. If there is not clarity around what things cost, if it’s not clear what procedures should be implemented, when, there’s always somebody that was unintentionally caught up in that. It complicates their lives. Uh, it often happens at a greater scale than we ever imagined. And I’ve seen that both as-as a paralegal working on the Georgia Department of Corrections and working on the immigration side, uh, bo-both in sort of superior court but also in-in local immigration courts here in Atlanta.
So I wanted to raise these issues and we rise in opposition to the bill, but we do agree with the sen-sentiments previously stated. Thank you so much for your time.

Committee Chairman:
Thank you. Uh, Megan Gordon will be next.

Megan Gordon:
Hi, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I’m going to go real fast because I’m doing the same committee shuffle you all are doing today.

Committee Chairman:
Bless your heart.

Megan Gordon:
(laughs)

Committee Chairman:
Go ahead, go ahead, thank you.

Megan Gordon:
Um, I know you all can relate. My name is Megan Gordon. I’m the Policy Manager at the Georgia Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and I just want to point out a technical problem with this bill. Um, you all have heard asylum mentioned a couple of times today, and I want to point out why that is. If you all would join on me line 47, if you were so inclined, um, that’s where the legislation sets out the-this s-standard for which, um, what law enforcement will be looking when-when they are deciding whether they need to-to notify ICE about someone. And that says they are looking lawful admission and current lawful status of the foreign national. That is where we have a problem, a legal problem, because there are multiple types of immigration status where someone could enter the country illegally but then gain corona- uh, but then gain lawful status. DACA is-is a pretty commonly known one when people come in as a- as undocumented children and then gain status.
Asylum is one because in asylum cases, someone crosses the border illegally and then presents themselves to law enforcement and says, “Hi, please help me. Um, I can’t- It’s not safe for me in my country. Please put me through the legal proceedings degree status.” And so, um, by putting that, and we’re essentially raising the bar higher than federal immigration law, a-and we’ll be notifying ICE of people who are actually legally entitled to be here.
And now, I won’t pretend to have insight into the backend of law enforcement. I don’t know what ICE is going to do about that. We are compelling law enforcement to call them. I don’t know if ICE is going to say, “Hey, friend, um, thanks but no thanks. Have a good day.” Or they’re going to actually show a-and put into deportation proceedings people who don’t need to be in deportation proceedings. Because as Gigi said, mistakes happen. Um, there are people who have been deported who-who shouldn’t have been because, um, i-if we all agree on one thing, it’s that our immigration law is a hot mess (laughs) and it’s very difficult to understand.

Committee Chairman:
Uh, okay. Thank you for being with us today.

Megan Gordon:
So that’s all I have for you all. Thank you.

Committee Chairman:
Okay. Mr. DA King, I want to give you three minutes. If you feel free to just take one, if you’d like to.

DA King:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, my name is DA King. I am President of the Dustin Inman Society. The Dustin Inman Society is named after a young man from Woodstock, Georgia, who will always be 16 years old because there’s a lot of people who don’t want us to enforce our immigration laws. Pretty maximalist liberal immigration laws on this planet. Um, it’s difficult to sit back there. I was here on this campus and helped create both of these laws and included- and-and helped modify them in various years. What you are hearing from people who do not want to punish or even report illegal aliens in this country is pretty standard boiler plate stuff from every hearing that’s ever happened, in any place near this capital on illegal immigration or the state taking an effort to do what the federal government refuses to do.
I’m not completely clear that everybody understands that what this bill is it inserts penalties into existing law. Um, as Representative Petrea mentioned, the 42414 is from 2006. That’s 18 years ago. The other one is 368023, it’s from 2010. I put that at 14 years ago. Um, we’re not trying to re-litigate that law, I hope. I hope we are considering whether or not we are actually going to make the rules in this state to compel the Sheriff’s Association to compel the sheriffs that they represent to actually enforce the, uh, comply with the laws based on the books as they are sworn to do.
Um, I’m-I’m trying to not to talk too fast but I-I’ve seen numbers that for the near internal poll, when I spoke with the ty- uh, Sheriff’s Association over the course of at least five years, um, I’ve seen number that-that showed 86 sheriff’s offices are in compliance with this. Maybe that number has gone up since last year when I saw it, but as I mentioned before, after 18 years, that doesn’t seem like a real good effort at-at compliance and I hope none of us ever tried to go that long without obeying a law.
Um, there’s a mention of we can- we can punish the sheriffs who are not in compliance-

Committee Chairman:
60 seconds.

DA King:
… by charging up with a violation of oath of office and then forming a panel by- with- for the governor. O-Or-Or by the governor, and then check it out from there. Again, I respectfully observe that the laws have been in the books for 18 years, pretty much everybody in the Sheriff’s Association knows that it’s not enforced, but there has been no panel. I have no reason to believe there would be, if you don’t put penalties in this law, in these two laws, if we don’t pass this bill out, I’m pretty sure I know what will happen. I’ve been doing this for 20 years. Um, I don’t know if my three minutes are up. I’ve got a lot more to say, though. I’m-I’m glad to go away.

Committee Chairman:
[inaudible 00:21:34] We appreciate you.

DA King:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Are there any questions?

Speaker 11:
I-I think I’ve got one question that [inaudible 00:21:41] reason of science. It’s not targeted to you. I-I just wanted to make sure to clarify just based on the testimony we received. I’m not sure. The constituency that all the groups represent but, um, I want to make sure everyone’s clear that, uh, the hours according to the Bureau of La-Labor Statistics, Hispanic citizens and legal residents are three times more likely to be victims of rape, robbery, or assault. And the way I see that this bill directly impacts and reduces that-that statistics, so I don’t know the constituents that some may claim to represent, but that’s the one I’m concerned with. Thank you.

Committee Chairman:
Thank you. I’m going to give the last word to the Chairman. [inaudible 00:22:19]

Speaker 13:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I’m going to- I’m going to sell you you something I’ve got to say. So, to-to the groups that spoke, you know, so I would, I almost want to ask those that spoke today if they’ve read the bill. Because quite frankly, I-I-I even the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, I don’t know that the gentleman’s read the bill. Uh, it makes it clear in here. This has nothing to do with detaining anyone. Line 116, inmates- inmates should be held no longer than 48 hours. Line 108, an inmate identified as an illegal alien shall not be detained on the basis of being an illi- ill-illegal alien. My friends, this is all an intention to obfuscate the facts, and here are the facts.
This bill requires one simple act: reporting. Not detaining. You had multiple conversations about detaining. Nothing in this bill requires that. Nothing in this bill has to do with anyway … somebody spoke to apprehension of illegal aliens. This is not. These individuals are already in jail. This is not about apprehension. This is not about detaining. This is about simply reporting, Mr. Chairman.
And there’s one other thing I want to say. The issues that the individuals that are speaking again- against this measure have, is with the current statute. The current statute if you look at Section 3, that whole beginning there is current law. The- Doing this is already law. All I’ve done is put a penalty for those who don’t. So their problem is really with the ball- bill-bill that is already- the law that is already on the books. It isn’t with what I’m trying to do. What I’m trying to do is take the process that is currently utilized, put it in the law, and require that it be done. Mr. Chairman, that’s what we’re trying to do here in this law, as I said last time. Either put a penalty in there to require it be done and reporting that requires it be done, or move to eliminate it altogether. Somebody offer a bill to eliminate the measure altogether. There’s a lot of folks in this room that said you’d rather not do that. But what would the people of Georgia want? That’s what we got to deal with here as policy makers.

Committee Chairman:
To the members-

Speaker 13:
Mr. Chairman, that’s all I have to say.

Committee Chairman:
To the members of the Committee, thank you for hanging in there with us. I hope to see some advancement in this bill next week. I would a-ask my author- the author of the bill with my friend if he would continue to work with, uh, the Sheriff’s Association and do take this imperative that we have some buy-in from them and have some kind of comfort level, uh, as we move this bill forward. I think this is a good piece of legislation that will benefit, uh, public safety and the citizens of Georgia. There being no further, uh, committee business, we now stand adjourned.

Speaker 13:
Thank you, Chairman.